Friday, January 16, 2009

Carney 2009

A guest post from our friend KAR

The Congressman Carney apologists have had a busy week, there were at least 3 letters this week by those insisting that Carney was entitled to, and had earned a pay increase. It has been noted that last year the 10th district representative voted against the increase, and when it passed he donated it to charity; very commendable indeed.

Correct if I’m wrong, but the fact that Carney donated the raise to charity doesn’t alter the fact that he accepted the increase. He merely donated it and took a tax write-off for the contribution; while still commendable it doesn’t answer the question of what he is going to do this year. Does the congressman feel that congress performed in a way that merits an increase? Does he feel that he is entitled to an increase based on his own performance in office? His is salary this year, absent any largesse, will reflect 2 pay increases.

He cannot have it both ways, if he is that opposed to the increase he should try to drum up support from his colleagues to forego the increase. It’s doubtful he will do that, most likely he will feign opposition, maybe even vote against it, but at the end of the day he will most likely accept it.

Many American taxpayers are facing hard times and have had to make tough decisions regarding how they spend their money, congress shouldn’t be immune from the same concerns and fears, heck you could make a case that they are responsible, at least in part, for the plight of the American taxpayer.

The fear among many republicans in the 10th district is that Carney, when he feels secure in his position, will start to show his true nature, maybe we’re beginning to see that change. A quick glance at the recently released campaign expenditures and fundraising shows that Carney raised over 2.3 million dollars, a lot of those dollars, just under 50%, came from special interest PACs. It’s safe to assume that those groups are going to want to see a return on their investment.Let’s all keep a close watch on our wallets and hope that come 2010 we will be able to return the seat in the 10th to a fiscally responsible republican.

Considering what the Bush folks are doling out for spa treatments for the large banks a hardworking rep like Carney deserves the pay raise.And BTW, unlike coward Bush and Meuser he actually serves his country in the Armed Forces.

Hey Kar, before you criticize Carney I would take a look at what he has worked on in the 111th congress. He is an original Cosponsor of H.R. 156 the Stop Congressional Pay Raise Act. As you can tell from the title the bill stops the pay raise. Also, you talk about accepting PAC money as a bad thing. It’s not, as long as it doesn’t dictate your actions. PAC money allows a middle class person to run a campaign As far as the PAC’s that gave money to Carney I hope he represents some of them like the Blue Dog Pac, NRA, Dairy Farmers of America, VFW and especially the Beer Wholesalers PAC. I would much rather have a fellow veteran serving as a member of congress than a millionaire!

Washington- Chris Carney (D-PA) took his marching orders from his Democrat leaders in stride today when he lined up to vote for the so-called “Fair Pay Act,” which will deliver a massive handout to trial lawyers by allowing for open-ended assurance of frivolous lawsuits relating to wage discrimination in the workplace (House Roll Call 9). Carney's vote today is a blatant payback to the trial lobby, which has so far donated $15,000 to his congressional campaign account.

The bill that Carney supported will “essentially eliminate that statute of limitations on such cases,” where an employee tries to sue for pay discrimination, potentially allowing suits to be filed on claims going as far back as 30 or more years (Congress Daily 8/1/07). This bill will inevitably cause a crippling backlog of frivolous lawsuits in an already crowded court system.

Many middle-class families have already lost their hard-earned retirement and savings, yet Carney supported this so-called “fair pay” bill, which has the potential to throw nearly every employee with a retirement and savings account into enormous risk. A letter from American Benefits Council to Congress on June 26, 2007 stated its concerns about an identical bill:

“This proposed legislation could possibly raise very serious retirement plan issues…. The plan could become woefully underfunded, undermining the retirement security of thousands of other plan participants.”

In an increasingly fragile economy, where businesses are already struggling to make ends meet, Carney's reckless decision to create a free flow of frivolous lawsuits is hardly in the best interests of America’s businesses or work force.

“Today, Chris Carney clearly prioritized a payback to the trial lobby and inevitably put at risk his constituents’ retirement and savings security,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “In just the first few days of the new Congress, Chris Carney has hardly demonstrated a concern for hard-working middle-class families, but has instead put the needs of his party leaders and special interests above the voters who elected him to office.”

Carney has worked hard to position himself as something close to a republican while still maintaining his standing in the democratic party, this hasn't been easy.

There are basic philosophical differences between republicans and democrats including but not limited to;the role of government,tax policy, foreign policy, job creation & business development,& social issues.

You align yourself with the party that most closely reflects your own viewpoint. Carney, for whatever reason is a democrat. He may pretend to be a republican but he is not and I think that we shall see evidence of that fact emerge over the next two years.

His party now runs everything, he is going to have to "get in line" or he is going to have to resign himself to the fact that he won't be able to accomplish anything.

2010 will be here in a blink of an eye, republicans need to select a candidate who can unite the party and also attract some conservative democratic voters, Hackett was not that candidate.

Dan Meuser would fit that description, whether he runs or not is his decision. I'm hopeful that he will run.

kevin

P.S. If any of you wants to visit a new conservative blog, one with a female perspective, try www.stormpoliticspa.blogspot.comand tell her that KAR sent you.

KAR,You fit an old saying very well - often wrong, but never in doubt. Carney will not have to "fall in line" - you dope. The Dems have a big enough majority in the house that they will be able to continue to give a pass to guys like Carney and others in GOP leaning districts. The key for the dems is to have a majority; they understand the game and leadership will continue to give passes to guys like Carney. Get a clue or do some real research.

Your second point on uniting the party - how do you expect to get the right of the party to back meuser - he's a big government, pork happy, don't want to fix SS, candidate.

The depth of your lack of understanding of the landscape is profound. But, this is America, and you're entitle to show your ignorance.

One thing KAR, the repbulicans under Bush have become the party of big gov't, unchecked federal spending, nation building, intervention in foreign gov't's, porous borders, encouragement of companies to export jobs, draft dodging and on and on. Dan Meuser was a Bushie so I was not sure then and I am not sure now if he is a genuine conservative republican. You may like the man, but his support for Bush speaks volumes that he leanings are more neo-conservative than conservative.

TMMAP, President Bush had a lot of issues to deal with that few other, if any Presidents had to deal with; you could argue that some were of his own making, but the fact remains his plate was full almost from day one.

I think history will be much kinder to George H.W. Bush than the instant perspective and legacy crowd, I hope I'm alive to see it.

How conservative is Dan Meuser? Well I can't and don't speak for him but I know that his views on defense, taxes, immigration, and social issues, they sound conservative to me.

We need someone who embraces ideas but is not an ideologue, maybe some day the ultra right wing of the party will accept that, until then we will keep losing elections.

one other thing KAR, when the party stopped embracing conservatism and accepted neo-conservatism is when we started losing.

bush may have had his plate full, but great leaders rise to that occassion, not use the indicdences as excuses to destroy our nation.

i am a republican, i am a conservative and i believe wholeheartedly that the abandonment of conservative ideals is what destroyed our party.

W. spoke out one side of his mouth and acted more liberally than bill clinton.

Meuser alignment w/W. is enough for me never to cast a vote for him. After W. give me the enemy I know then the sheepskin covered friend I don't.

Actually it is my hope that the republican party goes the way of the WHIG's and a new true conservative party takes hold, this way the neo-cons can go back to the socialist roots of Bill Krystal's father and rejoin the dem party, or better yet just go away.

KARyou continue to spout words "views on defense, taxes, immigration and social issues" that mean nothing. Carney has views that sound conservative on these items as well - but that doesn't make him a conservative. I've heard meuser speak and he knows some buzz words, but he has no idea what the substance is behind the words.

The unfortunate part is meuser appears to be the only candidate that is considering a run in 2010. And I think the GOP will continue to have money problems for the foreseeable future and guys like him are the only ones with a chance.

BTW, nothing to say about the post above TMMAP????? What, got your tongue caught in a wheels of a scooter?

TMMAP, and just plain anonymous, forgive me for the delay. I was having dinner out with my wife, (Connor's Grill in Dallas, very good food, if you go tell them Kevin sent you).

Let's talk. We all claim to be republicans, we disagree on just how conservative we are, and that in my opinion hurts us.

I believe in smaller less intrusive government.

I believe that we should all have the right to acheive our full potential and earn as much as our talent, ability and courage enables us to earn.

I believe that we should prosecute the "War on Terror" aggesively and without apology to any other Nation.

I believe that the "American way of Life" offers the best hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.

I support the death penalty, and believe that the CIA, NSA, or whatever agency is responsible for apprehending and interrogating terrorists should be allowed to do it in a way that ensures that innocent lives are protected.

On the social issues I'm less strident.

I won't stand in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic and stop someone form entering.

Additionally I don't care who marries whom or what their sexual preference is; if that makes me less of a conservative in some people's eyes, so be it.

As far as I'm concerned the number one priority of any President is ensuring the security of this country, if we are not secure the rest of the issues really don't matter.

KAR,"we disagree on just how conservative we are, and that in my opinion hurts us." What does this mean? Are you saying that those who are more or less conservative than you (on either fiscal or social issues) hurts the GOP cause? You think those who are passionate about the life issue and are willing to take action and being involved are kooks.

Since National Security is the main role of the President and so important to you; are you willing to pay more in taxes to make sure we have the resources we need to be successful?

Our disagreements hurt us because we cannot present a united front, and that makes it difficult to win elections.

More taxes for a more secure nation? If a case could be made that a lack of funding was hampering our ability to secure this nation,and it was demonstrated that there were no other funding mechanisms available...yeah I'd pay more.

More taxes for security is not the question though, I do belive that we have the resources available.

What we may lack, especially in a world run by democrats, is the will to aggressively protect this country.

KAR,Just to remind you of your previous post and how you're such a uniter of the GOP. It was clear in the primary that Hackett was the conservative (that would be FISCAL) in the race and it was you and your ilk who divided the party calling them all kooks and extremists. Spending reform and SS reform and dealing with corporate welfare (majority of farm subsidies go to the ADM's of the world) are key parts of the conservative agenda.

KAR,I don't understand. You consider yourself a fiscal conservative, yet you don't like the Club for Growth? They are the undisputed leader in the low tax, ending wasteful spending agenda. The candidate you support, Meuser, interviewed with them and sought their support when he was running - but now, since they didn't go his way, they are toxic to the party?

A bit weak on credibility, don't you think? Or was it that you found out how evil they were after they rejected Meuser.

Anyway, someone posted some cockamamie press release from the Republican party trying to link Comrade Carney's vote for a fair pay bill to trial lawyers.

I actually wnet and looked up the vote (I don't really trust party mouthpieces from either side) and there was a Republican motion to recommit (basically, a last ditch effort by the minority party to replace the bill's language with something more acceptable to their party) that would limit the fees that attorneys could charge people suing for fair pay.

Carney was one of a handful of Democrats who crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans to limit what trial lawyers could charge.

Maybe the Republicans should stop criticizing Carney for politic's sake and just embrace his support for some of their efforts; they might actually have some policy victories.

The Republican Party of today - highest federal spending, almost more than every other presidency combined, pre-emtive wars - NOT a conservative value, endless wars in general - not a conservative value, Bush funnelling $$$ to his family via the war he himself started (check out this video - Bush Economic Meltdown Going as Planned ).

KAR - you better seriously do some research and soul-searching and stop blindly following a party because they're called "Republican".

I'm defending Carney in no way, if you read exactly what I say. I agree that he's a Republican in disguise.

But the point is, you better re-evaluate what is a "conservative" and what is the "Republican Party" for your own good.

To repeat - the Republican Party is NOT "conservative", wake up! And start discarding labels like " - R" after someone's name.

We're ALL being taken for a ride by BOTH parties, and blind allegiance to one or the other isn't helping matters.

Carney is not a "liberal", his record speaks for itself. But he's better than the "so-called" conservatives Hackett, Meuser, and mistress-choker Sherwood, and that's a pretty sad statment in itself. What does that say about Meuser, Hackett, and the Republicans, that they are calling Carney a "liberal" and he's not? It tells me they're full of crap and they don't know what they're talking about.

Of all the people mentioned above, Carney is the closest to what is a "conservative", and he's not really very close.

- highest spending of all time- bailing out the banksters and not the regular American people losing their homes- starting endless wars with the wrong countries (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)- Big Brother - domestic spying on ALL Americans including YOU

How can you soley blame Bush for Iraq in a thread about Chris Carney but ignore the memo authored by Carney that was presented to give credible evidence for the U.S. invastion.

From newsweek- http://www.newsweek.com/id/60389/output/print

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000172.html

For instance,:

--"Consider one of the seemingly more compelling reports cited in the memo: that Farouk Hijazi, the former chief of Iraqi intelligence and then ambassador to Turkey, flew to Afghanistan in late 1998 to meet with bin Laden," Newsweekwrites. "As Stephen Hayes, author of The Weekly Standard piece dutifully notes, accounts of this purported Saddam overtureto Osama made its way into the mainstream press at the time...But, as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism official, says, the Feith-Carney memo omits the rest of the story: that bin Laden actually rejected the Hijazi overture, concluding he did not want to be 'exploited' by a regime that he has consistently viewedas 'secular' and fundamentally antithetical to his vision of a strict Islamic state."

Big Dan has it right about the GOP and KAR continues to think middle of the road is the way to go - Bush is a neo-con (big government, big spending, industrial military complex driven). The Club for Growth is a bastion of fiscal conservative values - and, yes, they are right wing, but that is what we need to move the country in the right direction.

The "right flank" of the party is not the problem - its dopes like you who support moderates like Bush pretending they're conservatives. That's how we got into this mess.

Do you even grasp the inherent conflict in your vilification of the CFG at the same time you espouse conservative fiscal values - get a clue.

Oh, god, watch out... Tiffany "stormpolitics" Cloud is another sycophant on the Meuser payroll. The "top employer" with whom she is a "senior executive" is Pride Mobility. She's one of the many VP's there you can't swing a dead cat without hitting. Let the Meuser campaign blitz begin!

I've posted a number of replies in this string to stupid KAR comments and clearly think little of his bandwidth.

But Stormpolitics looks like the beginnings of an excellent site. I give anyone credit who is willing to take the time to write their opinions and put them out for public consumption - it's a risk few are willing to take.

Just because she works for the company that meuser once worked for doesn't mean she is bad or myopic in her views. I say, give her a chance - if she turns into a shill for anyone, open up on her, but as long as she doesn't operate like KAR, hold judgment.

She clearly states the goal of her blog and it has nothing to do with meuser or Pride - it'll be easy to see if she strays from this mission.

I was giving myself a break from politics for a while but KAR is pulling me back in...along with 80,000 other people it seems...people just seem react viscerally to him....not always in a good way of course, but what the heck...If you think Carney is some closet liberal waiting to come out of the weeds, I think you're mistaken. If that happens he is in danger of losing his seat the minute he does. He's a moderate in a Republican district, which means he's never really safe I guess.Jedi and KAR are right about CFG though too...their stance is a tough sell anywhere except the reddest areas.

Now on to other matters; CFG may have started out as a "bastion of fiscal conservative values" but it has evolved, or more properly devolved, into a bastion of narrow minded xenophobes (is there such a thing as an open minded xenophobe?).

The republican party needs to recognize that the ground that needs to be taken is in the middle.

That is where the majority of voters reside, in the middle right or midle left, and there is common ground that can be worked to our advantage.

CFG and similar groups on the extreme left would have us believe that you can capture elections by working the fringe...well it isn't called the "lunatic fringe" for no reason.

Do you even know what xenophobe means? Let me give you a little help: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin. Are you saying they are a racist organization? If so, let's hear your proof.

As it relates to the fringe: Ronald Reagan and President Elect Obama didn't run as moderates and as others have indicated in prior postings; Bush was a moderate on fiscal issues (I'd actually say a liberal if not for his low tax stance). The "lunatic fringe" of both parties is in fact how they win.

You may be right that the "majority" of people out there are "moderate". But also remember, the "majority" of people don't get off their cans and vote.

Just so you know according to the Herald Tribune amongst other sources, roughly 65% of Americans eligible to vote in 2008 turned out.

In 2004 it was roughly 60%.

In 2000 it was 52%.

So in the past 8 years over a majority of those who voted could.

If more people like KAR ran the GOP they would be winning more elections. The answer isn't to yell the same far-right nonsense louder every year. That didn't work at all this year against the Democrats.

I sent KAR's comments to the Club for Growth so when Meuser goes back to their DC office in 2009 to beg them for an endorsement like he did in 2007, they'll know what kind of slime they're dealing with.

Let's see how CFG and the GOP do in 2010. They didn't do steller this year. They were -1 in the general election for 2008. 9 wins and 10 losses.

They screwed up in Colorado. They took out Rep. Wilson who was viewed by analysts as being the most electable Republican in that Senate race. That went to the Democrats.

In 2008 only 22% of counties voted MORE Republican than in 2004.

The GOP needs to abandon the Religious Right first off. The GOP needs to diversify. They need to attract Latinos and other races. Latinos used to vote big for Republicans. That changed.

In 2010 the GOP has 19 senate seats to defend. The Democrats 16. 12 (Possibly 11. Ohio is debatable now that it is an open seat election) of those GOP seats are reasonably safe assuming the incumbent runs. 15 of those Democratic seats are reasonably safe if the incumbent runs.

6 of those seats will be very hard for the GOP to defend. They need candidates that can appeal to a wide variety of voters. Not just the far right voters. Missouri has been a very close sate for elections. McCain narrowly won. The GOP needs to defend this seat. Florida is gonna be the hardest I bet. They MUST find a candidate who can court the Latino vote. If not then it will go blue. Kentucky, Lousiana, and South Dakota have weak Republicans. Alaska is looking weak, all though the Dems need a candidate with great name recognition. The GOP's best chance is to take Colorado. That as of right now is the weakest Democratic seat.

So we'll see how CFG and the GOP perform in 2010.

KAR is smart enough to realize that you need to get voters BEYOND your hardened ideological base.

Just because she works for the company that meuser once worked for doesn't mean she is bad or myopic in her views. She clearly states the goal of her blog and it has nothing to do with meuser or Pride - it'll be easy to see if she strays from this mission.

Hee Hee... yeah, whatever. When she starts humping Dan's leg, just remember I called it first. I know my Meusers.

I agree, give Storm a chance. Don't make crude remarks about a woman who has done nothing but write about teaching kids The Constitution; fiscal responsibility; and helping area parents, like her, cope with the loss of their children. A little respect.